Why do you still believe that a collapse due to fire wouldn't be possible?

[Patriots4Truth]

WTC1/2 never reached free fall, so what are you talking about? WTC7 had part of itself, the north face, fall at free fall for only 2.25 seconds. Get the freefall argument out of your head...it is debunked...long ago.

TAM

*replace everywhere I said freefall with pretty damn close to freefall if you so wish

 

[T.A.M.]

*replace everywhere I said freefall with pretty damn close to freefall if you so wish

12-13 seconds seem to be the most accurate times for the WTC1 and 2 collapses, if you do not include the core, which stood for a few seconds after the tower collapsed. 12-13 seconds is 25-30% longer then free fall. How is that "pretty damn close"?

Mom I got a 60% on my exam....that is pretty close to a 90%.

TAM

 

[T.A.M.]

The time of the start of the collapse to the time of freefall is the most suspect. This happened too quickly for a steel framed building.

There wasn't enough axial weight coming from the top block/tube to allow free fall to happen so quickly into the collapses. The reason that free fall was achieved so quickly is explosives

So now you have resorted to giving us your uneducated opinion based not on scientific laws or calculations, but based on your "intuitive" sense of how you think things should have happened.

Well there is no counter argument to that...there is no need...self debunked by virtue of incredulousness.

TAM

 

[Patriots4Truth]

12-13 seconds seem to be the most accurate times for the WTC1 and 2 collapses, if you do not include the core, which stood for a few seconds after the tower collapsed. 12-13 seconds is 25-30% longer then free fall. How is that "pretty damn close"?

Mom I got a 60% on my exam....that is pretty close to a 90%.

TAM

You have to look at the different stages. Even NIST can tell you that.

 

[T.A.M.]

Very very vague non-answer. You should just hang up the skates my friend, in this area you are over your head.

TAM

 

[Patriots4Truth]

So now you have resorted to giving us your uneducated opinion based not on scientific laws or calculations, but based on your "intuitive" sense of how you think things should have happened.

Well there is no counter argument to that...there is no need...self debunked by virtue of incredulousness.

TAM

Not self-debunked, unanswered

Now where's a distinguished independent physicist/engineer I can contact for the answer? My intuition also tells me that most of the scientists posting in the 9/11 conspiracy section of this forum here are biased.

 

[T.A.M.]

Go look up a local ASCE engineer in your phone book. If you are not from America, contact your local Engineering society, and ask them for some...or, once again, go to the yellow pages.

We await your report.

TAM

 

[Mancman]

You hardly have any plane left in PA and at the Pentagon, but now all of a sudden the plane debris is overloading the tower floors? In your so called raging inferno no less. I guess the aluminum should have survived what you claim the steel didn't. Yeah right.

Hey guys we should absorb the wisdom from this one, I never knew that when a plane is smashed into tiny pieces, it no longer weighs as much as when it was intact, fascinating.

 

[beachnut]

The time of the start of the collapse to the time of freefall that is most suspect. How quickly that happened.

No subject, no building, no idea.

WTC7 started collapsing when the penthouse fell through the WTC 7! That was longer than free fall time for WTC7. This means the interior of the WTC7 was collapsing while the facade only showed deformation. The total time of collapse for WTC 7 was over 2 times the free fall time. In your vacuum with a piece of wood, or feather. You don't understand drag very well.

WTC 1 and 2 fell very slow compared to free-fall, but then you don't do physics so you don't understand or care to research what was going on. The fact is the cores of the WTC towers remained standing well after most the building collapsed. Further, the tower itself is clearly seen still standing while debris out side of the building beats the collapse of the building.


WTC 7 took over 15 seconds to collapse; next time explain with numbers why 15 seconds is close to free-fall. You must of missed the penthouse falling into WTC 7. 911 truth fails to tell you the collapse started with the penthouse and internal failures. oops

 

[Nonpareil]

The time of the start of the collapse to the time of freefall is the most suspect. This happened too quickly for a steel framed building.

When, exactly, did the building reach free-fall speeds?

How fast is "too fast for a steel-framed building"?

What mathematical evidence do you have to back up your answers to the above two questions?

*replace everywhere I said freefall with pretty damn close to freefall if you so wish

How close is "pretty damn close", and how close is too close to be impossible in a collapse?

What mathematical evidence do you have to back up your answer to the above question?

Not self-debunked, unanswered

Now where's a distinguished independent physicist/engineer I can contact for the answer? My intuition also tells me that most of the scientists posting in the 9/11 conspiracy section of this forum here are biased.

You've got the equations. I gave them to you, so I know you've got them. You can work it yourself.

Or, failing that, you could go to a university of some kind, preferably one with an emphasis on engineering, such as Rose-Hulman, and ask the professors.

Or you could contact ASCE.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I'm not interested in the speed of the whole collapse for my math problem that I will have to impose upon some unbiased physicists/engineers - just the acceleration until freefall (or near freefall speed) and the changes in acceleration as each floor collides. As for wtc7 I would be most interested in the time right after the penthouse collapse until free fall (or near free fall speed) for both the north tower and the rest of the building separately.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I'm pretty sure you are missing lots of equations Pure_Argent. You didn't even get into the axial stuff.

 

[Patriots4Truth]

I just discovered that some of the "Jolt" talk has some things to do with what I'm interested in. Now I have a lot of researching to do to find out more about Jolt talk

 

[Nonpareil]

I'm not interested in the speed of the whole collapse for my math problem

Why not? We're talking about the whole collapse, after all.

just the acceleration until freefall (or near freefall speed)

Again, how close is "near free-fall speed"? How close to free-fall speed is impossible for a collapse?

I'm pretty sure you are missing lots of equations Pure_Argent. You didn't even get into the axial stuff.

Me, personally? No. But that's not what I'm talking about, and if you had actually read what I posted, you would know that. I gave you a link - multiple times - to a paper which contains all the relevant math in one simple, easy-to-read format. Have you read it?

 

[fess]

*replace everywhere I said freefall with pretty damn close to freefall if you so wish

Would you make up your damn mind?

 

[Patriots4Truth]

P4T:I'm not interested in the speed of the whole collapse for my math problem

Why not? We're talking about the whole collapse, after all.


P4T:just the acceleration until freefall (or near freefall speed)

Again, how close is "near free-fall speed"? How close to free-fall speed is impossible for a collapse?


P4T:I'm pretty sure you are missing lots of equations Pure_Argent. You didn't even get into the axial stuff.

Me, personally? No. But that's not what I'm talking about, and if you had actually read what I posted, you would know that. I gave you a link - multiple times - to a paper which contains all the relevant math in one simple, easy-to-read format. Have you read it?

I'm sorry if I somehow misled you. I'm only interested in the speed/acceleration of the collapse up to when the collapses reached that steady drop rate around freefall speed.

-------------------------

It turns out that "Jolt Talk" has some convincing arguments along with the time period I'm interested in. If there is no jolt/s at the start of the collapse then surely there wasn't the gravitational/fire collapse as told in the original story.

Jolt Talk youtube part 1
Jolt Talk youtube part 2

It appears that there was no jolt/s. I smell explosives

 

[Carlos]

One of the truthers biggest mistakes is to consider the building as if it were a solid block.

Buildings are made up of floors and columns.

When the columns of one floor are still intact they offer great resistance.

When the columns of the same floor fail by buckling they offer poor resistance.

And the process repeats. Something like this:

Floor: N
Status: still intact
Space/displacement (ΔS): some inches
Acceleration: poor

Floor: N
Status: failed by buckling
Space/displacement (ΔS): 12 ft
Acceleration: great
______________

Floor: N-1
Status: still intact
Space/displacement (ΔS): some inches
Acceleration: poor

Floor: N-1
Status: failed by buckling
Space/displacement (ΔS): 12 ft
Acceleration: great
______________

Floor: N-2
Status: still intact
Space/displacement (ΔS): some inches
Acceleration: poor

Floor: N-2
Status: failed by buckling
Space/displacement (ΔS): 12 ft
Acceleration: great
______________

Floor: N-3
Status: still intact
Space/displacement (ΔS): some inches
Acceleration: poor

Floor: N-3
Status: failed by buckling
Space (Δs): 12 ft
Acceleration: great
______________


So, under these conditions, the average acceleration during the collapse would be closer to the "great" or "poor"?

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

Hey guys we should absorb the wisdom from this one, I never knew that when a plane is smashed into tiny pieces, it no longer weighs as much as when it was intact, fascinating.

Hmmm, so I guess if you were to burn a campfire all night in morning the remaining ash would weigh the same as all the wood you threw on the fire huh? fascinating

I was referring to how it's claimed that much of the plane was incinerated in the fire at the Pentagon for example. It's also claimed that the molten metal witnessed at the towers was aluminum. One can only assume if the fire was hot enough to compromise the steel to the point of collapse, then most if not all of the floor contents should have burned up in smoke. Drywall, carpet, furniture, etc. Also if the aluminum from the plane turned molten it would run down the elevator shafts, broken floors, windows, and down the stairs making the loads not so concentrated to one area. Not to mention that much of the plane should have been shredded initially breaking through the outer cage which would have also distributed the load throughout several floors.

 

[little grey rabbit]

School of Architecture ......masons.....damn those masons...

 

[Sivan Kurzberg]

The water running down the stairs was because the water system was BROKE. You debunk yourself like all of 911 truth, failure to launch based on lack of knowledge and believing in your own BS nonsense of how things work. 9 years of failure, followed by more moronic repeated failure as if they were trying to be more failed than before.

Wow, you are debunking 911 truth faster than free-fall.

You don't know that. It might have just been water from WORKING sprinklers running down the stairs.